Central Information Commission
A Murugesan vs Ministry Of Micro, Small And Medium ... on 12 May, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/BS/A/2015/002271/MP
Appellant : Shri A. Murugesan, Trichy
Public Authority : MSME, New Delhi
Date of Hearing : April 26, 2017
Date of Decision : May 04, 2017
Present:
Appellant : Present - through VC
Respondent : Shri Om Pal Singh, Deputy Director - at CIC
RTI application : 26.03.2014
CPIO's reply : NA
First appeal : 10.06.2014
FAA's Order : NA
Second appeal : 18.11.2015
ORDER
1. Shri A. Murugesan, the appellant, sought information relating to the delay in release of subsidy claim under the Credit Linked Capital Subsidy Scheme (CLCSS) to the appellant for his rice mill (SME Unit). The appellant sought the status of his subsidy claim; reasons for not approving the said claim; time period within which the decision, approving his subsidy claim, would be taken; photocopies of all the correspondences that had taken place between MSME and Bank of Baroda Corporate Office, Mumbai in connection with the appellant's subsidy claim; etc., through five points.
2. The appellant does not seem to have attached the copy of CPIO's reply dated 26.06.2014. The appellant, alleging not to have received any response from the CPIO, approached the First Appellate Authority (FAA) with a request to provide the information as sought by him in his RTI application. The FAA does not seem to have adjudicated in the matter. Aggrieved, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that the CPIO and FAA both, had not responded to his RTI application till date and requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the complete information to him in addition to awarding compensation to the appellant from the CPIO, for delay in providing the requisite information.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he had applied for grant of subsidy under the CLCSS Scheme against his loan sanctioned to him for his rice mill by the Bank of Baroda, Mannachanallur Branch, Tiruchirapalli on 11.06.2009 but, subsequently his claim for subsidy was denied by the respondent authority on the ground that it was barred by limitation as his application was not processed by the Bank in time. The appellant sought clarifications from the CPIO in his RTI application as to the date by which his subsidy claim would be decided by the respondent authority, among other things and particularly sought the correspondence that had taken place between the respondent authority and the Bank of Baroda, Corporate Office, Mumbai, with respect to his subsidy claim. The appellant submitted that neither the CPIO nor the FAA responded to his RTI application and first appeal till date.
4. The respondent stated that the CPIO replied to the appellant's RTI application on 26.06.2014, providing the available information. The respondent further submitted that they had received the list of claimants for the said subsidy including the appellant's claim dated 11.06.2009 from the Bank of Baroda, Mumbai on 28.02.2012 while it should have reached the respondent authority before 30.09.2011, as had been decided in a meeting of nodal agencies and banks and therefore, the claim of the appellant was rejected as ineligible due to late receipt. The bank had in fact forwarded the list of the claimants to the respondent authority on 17.01.2012. The respondent, however, agreed to provide the copy of the letter forwarded by the Bank of Baroda, Mumbai on 17.01.2012 to the respondent authority, containing the list of the claimants but concerning only the appellant's claim details.
5. On hearing both the parties, the Commission observes that the CPIO has responded appropriately vide letter dated 26.06.2014 and that a public authority is not supposed to create or collate non-available, non-existing information for the satisfaction of the appellant u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. A public authority is supposed to furnish only that information to the appellant which is held by it or under its control in material/data form under the Act. The Commission, however, directs the CPIO to provide the copy of the letter forwarded by the Bank of Baroda, Mumbai on 17.01.2012 to the respondent authority, containing the list of the claimants, blocking third party information and concerning only the appellant's claim details so as to enable him to know when his case was forwarded to MSME, to the appellant, within a week from the date of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Dy Registrar Copy to:
The Central Public Information Officer The First Appellate Authority Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises, Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises, Deputy Director, MSME (Policy), O/o Development Commissioner, O/o Development Commissioner, Nirman Bhawan, 7th Floor, Nirman Bhawan, 7th Floor, Maulana Azad Road, Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi - 110 108 New Delhi - 110 108 Shri A. Murugesan, Managing Partner, Sri Mayilavahanan Agro Foods, Jayalakshmi & Company Rice Mill No. 1, Thuraiyur Road, Mannachanallur (PO), District- Trichy, Tamil Nadu - 621 005